Re: Etruscan and IE (was Re: [tied] Re: Names of a few Celtic Deiti

Patrick:

> Incorrect. The _basis_ for the reconstructed
> monosyllables and their meanings in the
> Proto-Language is analyses of attested words and
> reconstructed roots of words in attested languages.

No, your basis is your whimsical _interpretation_ of
the attested words and reconstructed roots of words
in attested languages. As such, Proto-Language and
Proto-World are not all that different. Both are not
based on the same linguistic science taught at
universities around the entire globe. So what
philosophy then are they based on if not science?

> [...] in one example, *MO, a syllable I believe
> originally meant 'flesh':

Yes, you do *believe* this, I have no doubt. Belief
is irrelevant. Only facts and logic are.

> Based on the known fact that no people, never,
> nowhere has named a divinity 'Days', unless the
> Etruscans did.

How many languages at the time of IndoEuropean named
a deity "Sky father"? Your fact is valid but totally
irrelevant to the discussion of Etruscan Tinia.


= gLeN




__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com